Posted
by
samzenpus
on Thursday March 18, 2010 @02:12AM
from the pirate-friendly dept.

Nieriko writes After three years of arduous litigation, Jesus Guerra Calderon, owner of both a small bar and the P2P link webpage 'elrincondejesus.com' has beaten the SGAE (something like the Spanish version of the RIAA). The historic ruling states not only the legality of link webpages, but also the legality of P2P file-sharing networks. Quoting the judge: 'P2P Networks as mere data transmision networks between individual internet users, do not breach any rights protected by the Intellectual Property Law.' Downloading a file (from a P2P network) for private use is perfectly legal as long as there is no lucrative or collective use of the downloaded copy."

In Hungary, downloading is legal, but uploading not. So, P2P is in a grey area. However, there is a levy on all recordable media, even on pendrives and memory cards. So, clueful hungarians buy their recordable media from Slovakia where there is no such levy.

It's called social rebellion, coming from an anarchist extra lobe in spaniards' hearts. They fuck you, you fuck them. Once equilibrium is restored, we can go back and reopen discussion with media, to plan what the future should be like. At the moment we have to be pirates (soft pirates, we don't go around with a knife in the mouth assaulting SGAE yelling "for Tutatis") in order to compensate for revolutionary tax that they have imposed on CDs and other materials.

By the way, I don't see any real discussion of future plans on how the arts business should be managed in an ideal society. Example: have you ever heard anyone talking about a science-like management of artists? they would receive fellowships/short-term-contracts and fight for resources just like scientists do. Only the good ones survive this sieve, and end up having a merit-based stable job. People now will come with the argument that art cannot be judged on absolute values....bullshit. Talk to real understanders of arts and they will tell that good art can be distinguished from bad art.

As demonstrated by Nine Inch Nails with their "Ghosts I-IV" album, giving away music for free can result in significant financial gain.

Look at it this way: in most music shops there's a section where you can listen to a CD before you buy it (at least here in Estonia). I can listen to an album without paying for it and then decide whether I want to buy it or not. It's the same thing with downloading music - I download it, give it a listen and if I deem it to be good enough, I'll buy it. I buy 4-5 albums a year this way. Of course, this comes down to my being responsible enough to actually buy the albums I like. That's not something you can write into law, though (since I can decide that I don't like a particular album). How is my behavior destroying copyright? Would strict enforcement of copyright (not allowing me to listen before buying) increase or decrease the number of albums I buy?

Overall, I see the ruling as accepting the current public opinion. If a government has a priori knowledge that most people under a certain age download music and movies via P2P networks, would it make sense to start prosecuting as many of them as possible, hoping that the public opinion regarding P2P will change? Sure, if you beat a man enough, you can make him say there are five lights instead of four - but would that work on a large scale? I mean, there has to be something terribly wrong if a large part of population (I'd love to cite some statistics here but couldn't find anything recent) is considered to actively participate in criminal/illegal activities. The people want their horseless carriages and no matter how hard you try to outlaw them (for example, by requiring the drivers to disassemble those carriages whenever seeing horses down the road), the public has already made up their mind about it.

In Spain (most) people understand that murder, rape, robbery and those kind of things harming other people are bad things.But other kind of laws and regulations are just to be bent, and taken more as suggestions than real obligations.Compared with Germany, for instance, this makes Spain a mess in some sense, sure.

But people is more or less happy and they simply do what they want if they feel that nobody else is getting hurt (And companies do not count as 'somebody', neither lawyers)They will not complain too much about bad regulations, they just simply will ignore them collectively.

People just have so low confidence in politicians, lawers, law-makers, and copyright lobbies that it is natural just to sistematically ignore them.I am pretty sure irrational IP laws will always be bent until broken in Spain and everything will go on, as usual.

because when ACTA is rammed down everybody's throat... they'll have anti-porn filtering riding on the back of it... and by law, ISPs will have to block sites deemed to be distributing extreme and/or kiddie porn... what's the bets Pirate bay and other popular sites and their trackers get included on the filters then...